Ummm no, I wrote "Picking by any state, the US cannot win by life expectancy. No state can beat Canada for life expectancy, not even the lilly white ones." You then were reduced to cherry picking a county -- but even that wouldn't work so you then narrowed it by gender, then by race. Certainly. Pick any state you like. They all lose. Okay, why wouldn't easy access to preventative care improve lifespans?
Doesn't matter. Pick Saskatchewan which has a high murder rate (3.6/100000) and look at Montana right across the border with a murder rate half of Saskatchewan's. The life expectancy in Saskatchewan is 79.3 years, while in Montana it's 77.2 years. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/14/death-stats.html LOL. Those infant/pregnant mommy gangstas! Always waddling to their crimes! "Saskatchewan records high smoking and obesity rates: StatsCan" http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=0c85b217-12ab-47cd-af3d-637bda2f5a1c Try something else. Canada pays less for it's healthcare than the US both per capita and by percent of GDP.
Please explain to the rest of the class simple statistics. I'll start by giving the definition of arithmetic mean (the "average" in average life expectancy): ar·ith·met·ic mean (rth-mtk) n. The value obtained by dividing the sum of a set of quantities by the number of quantities in the set. Also called average. **If your post was sarcastic, you have my apologies**
I'd be very wary of this type of simplistic statistical comparison. I am quite sure there are plenty of countries with socialized medicine with far worse life expectancy than the US. It proves very little, unless you can establish a clear cause and effect relationship. By comparison, a simple examination of the bill shows us without any speculation that many people will lose their existing health coverage and be forced into obama-care, that your relationship with your physician will change drastically and that the elderly and other disfavored groups will be denied procedures and care they take for granted now. This bill is based on two flawed concepts. One is that there is a vast army of uninsured who can only get coverage through a government takeov er of health care. The other is that health care will be free or much cheaper and paid for by taxes on the other guy.
don't matter ... DOA. Democrats are spinless, sniveling fools. And you are the master of pulling shit-data out of your ass.
I don't ask you to believe me -- that's why I post links to all my sources. And I agree, Democrats are spineless. The first thing that seemed to happen to the healthcare bill was to remove the public option. (Even though it was gutted, the Republicans still opposed it.) So we're on the same side on that one.
Don't just ask us to trust you, show us how this will happen with examples. It's certainly cheaper in Canada.
It also depends on when the study to measure life expectancy in a region was taken. The infamous Harvard Study was based on 1982-2001 data. The canadian 2001 life expectancy data shows 76.9 for men and 82 for women. http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/hlth67-eng.htm?sdi=life expectancy http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Jul/12/ln/FP707120359.html According to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research report the life expectancy in Hawaii is 81.3 based on 1991 to 2004 data. Minnesota's life expectancy was 80.3. In 2004 life expectancy was 80.2 in Canada.
The "Manhattan Institute for Policy Research?" A coin-operated think-tank? What's wrong with the Hawaii Department of Health? And from 2004? But okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that these numbers are correct. Let's assume that there's only a .1 year difference between the absolute top, richest state and all of Canada. Isn't it interesting that taking the absolute TOP state and comparing it to all of Canada, including the poorest parts, that Canada is right in the running with the number one state?